Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s last report. Further to its observation and with reference to its previous direct request, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. The Committee notes with interest the provisions of section 1.2 and section 1.3 of Ministerial Decision No. 1014/94 (Official Gazette, No. 216) of 6 March 2001, issued by the Ministers of National Economy, Labour, Health, Welfare and Development, governing the regulations on radiation protection, which incorporate into national law the dose limits recommended in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), thus giving effect to Article 3, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

2. Article 13(d). Occupational exposure during and after an emergency situation. According to section 1.2.4 of Ministerial Decision No. 1014/94, the Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC) specifies the dose limits for exposure of workers during an emergency, which however may not exceed twice the annual dose limits specified for radiation workers under this Ministerial Decision, and may not exceed five times this limit over a lifetime. The Committee observes that these dose limits reflect the recommendations made by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1990. In this respect, the Committee notes that, although the ICRP has largely abandoned the limitations previously established for planned special exposures, it nevertheless suggests that workers’ exposure should not exceed 0.5 Sv during the first stage of an intervention for the "control of an accident", that is 25 times the average annual occupational dose limit, with the exception of life-saving actions. However, in a second stage of remedial work, which is to begin "once the immediate emergency is under control", the normal occupational dose limits are applicable without any exception. The Committee, which referred to these recommendations in paragraphs 23 to 27 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, understands that section 1.2.4 of the above Ministerial Decision makes no distinction between the two stages of an emergency intervention, which require the application of different dose limits for workers who undertake an intervention. In the light of these explanations and of the indications given in paragraphs 23-27 of the Committee’s 1992 general observation under the Convention to limit the occupational exposure of workers during and after an emergency intervention, the Committee requests the government to indicate how effect is given to the above mentioned recommendations.

3. Article 14. Alternative employment. The Committee notes section 1.7 of Ministerial Decision No. 1014/94, prohibiting the employment of a worker in a specific post where he is liable to become an exposed worker if the medical findings deem him unfit for such post, according to the opinion of the approved medical practitioner or the occupational health service. Pursuant to section 1.7 in conjunction with section 1.7.1(c) of the above Ministerial Decision, the approved medical practitioner or the occupational health service determines once a year whether the worker remains fit to perform radiation work. The Committee observes however that there does not seem to be a provision concerning the practical measures to be taken, i.e. the need to find alternative employment opportunities not involving exposure to ionizing radiation in the event that continued employment in a particular job involving exposure to ionizing radiations is contraindicated for health reasons. While Article 14 of the Convention does not directly address the issue of alternative employment to be offered to the workers concerned, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention where it underlined that the provision of alternative employment constitutes a general principle of occupational safety and health which appears in different instruments of the ILO. Beyond this, the offer of suitable alternative employment opportunities to these workers derives from the provision of Article 3, paragraph 1, of this Convention, according to which effective protection of workers must be ensured. The Government is therefore requested to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to provide suitable alternative employment to workers who are to discontinue radiation work for health reasons, or to enable them to maintain their income otherwise through social security measures.